?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Octopoid note

« previous entry | next entry »
Jan. 4th, 2010 | 12:34

One thing that makes the Magnificent Octopus so difficult to work out satisfactorily is that there are two main strands to the plot, which seem to me to be inextricably entwined and necessary to one another: like the two themes in the second movement of Beethoven’s Seventh, which are so finely balanced that I never can make up my mind which one to hum. What makes this difficult in the writing is that one strand is exoteric, as it were, and the other esoteric; and the esoteric strand has got to proceed largely beneath the surface and out of the way, for several reasons, including the plain practical reason that most of it goes on when the first-person POV character is not about. For this reason, too, I find it much the more difficult of the two strands to describe satisfactorily in an outline.

Imagine my astonishment, then, to find that the second strand, the difficult one, the esoteric one, has already been summarized with admirable skill — a little too perfectly, perhaps — by G. K. Chesterton, in his essay ‘The Feasts and the Ascetic’:

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Church is out of the question; that we have nothing but the earth and the children of man pottering about on it, with their normal mortal tales and traditions. Then suppose there appears on this earth a prodigy, a portent, or what is alleged to be a portent. In some way heaven has rent the veil or the gods have given some new marvel to mankind. Suppose, for instance, it is a fountain of magic water, said to be flowing at the top of a mountain. It blesses like holy water; it heals diseases; it inspires more than wine, or those who drink of it never thirst again. Well, this story may be true or false; but among those who spread it as true, it is perfectly obvious that the story will produce a number of other stories. It is equally obvious that those stories will be of two kinds. The first sort will say: ‘When the water was brought down to the valley there was dancing in all the villages; the young men and maidens rejoiced with music and laughter. A surly husband and wife were sprinkled with the holy water and reconciled, so that their house was full of happy children. A cripple was sprinkled and he went capering about gaily like an acrobat. The gardens were watered and became gay with flowers,’ and so on. It is quite equally obvious that there will be another sort of story from exactly the same source, told with exactly the same motive. ‘A man limped a hundred miles, till he was quite lame, to find the sacred fountain. Men lay broken and bleeding among the rocks on the mountainside in their efforts to climb after it. A man sold all his lands and the rivers running through them for one drop of the water. A man refused to turn back from it, when confronted with brigands, but was tortured and died calling for it,’ and so on. There is nothing in the least inconsistent between these two types of legend. They are exactly what would naturally be expected, given the original legend of the miraculous fountain.

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {3}

baduin

(no subject)

from: baduin
date: Jan. 4th, 2010 21:04 (UTC)
Link

You are still working on the book? I must say that I am very pleased, although for selfish reasons.

You are one of the best contemporary stylists in English, and it is a real pleasure to read something well written after all the confused muddle of modern writing.

Reply | Thread

Sherwood Smith

(no subject)

from: sartorias
date: Jan. 4th, 2010 21:18 (UTC)
Link

Oh, he describes that so perfectly.

Reply | Thread

baduin

(no subject)

from: baduin
date: Jan. 5th, 2010 7:09 (UTC)
Link

BTW, have you noticed that Chesterton is alluding to a real book here, the Well at the World's End by William Morris?

Reply | Thread